On 01/26/2017 03:45 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 25/01/17 11:19 PM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
On 01/25/2017 03:56 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 25/01/17 12:05 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Christian König
<deathsim...@vodafone.de> wrote:
Am 24.01.2017 um 11:44 schrieb Samuel Pitoiset:
On 01/24/2017 11:38 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 24.01.2017 11:34, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
On 01/24/2017 11:31 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 24.01.2017 11:25, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
On 01/24/2017 07:39 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 24/01/17 05:44 AM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
Useful when debugging applications which map too much VRAM.
Is the number of mapped buffers really useful, as opposed to the
total
size of buffer mappings? Even if it was the latter though, it
doesn't
show which mappings are for BOs in VRAM vs GTT, does it? Also,
even
the
total size of mappings of BOs currently in VRAM doesn't directly
reflect
the pressure on the CPU visible part of VRAM — only the BOs
which are
actively being accessed by the CPU contribute to that.
It's actually useful to know the number of mapped buffers, but
maybe
it
would be better to have two separate counters for GTT and VRAM.
Although
the number of mapped buffers in VRAM is most of the time very high
compared to GTT AFAIK.
I will submit in a follow-up patch, something which reduces the
number
of mapped buffers in VRAM (when a BO has been mapped only
once). And
this new counter helped me.
Michel's point probably means that reducing the number/size of
mapped
VRAM buffers isn't actually that important though.
It seems useful for apps which map more than 256MB of VRAM.
True, if all of that range is actually used by the CPU (which may
well
happen, of course). If I understand Michel correctly (and this was
news
to me as well), if 1GB of VRAM is mapped, but only 64MB of that are
regularly accessed by the CPU, then the kernel will migrate all of
the
rest into non-visible VRAM.
And this can hurt us, for example DXMD maps over 500MB of VRAM. And a
bunch of BOs are only mapped once.
But when they are mapped once that won't be a problem.
Again as Michel noted when a VRAM buffer is mapped it is migrated
into the
visible parts of VRAM on access, not on mapping.
In other words you can map all your VRAM buffers and keep them
mapped and
that won't hurt anybody.
Are you saying that I can map 2 GB of VRAM and it will all stay in
VRAM and I'll get maximum performance if it's not accessed by the CPU
too much?
Yes, that's how it's supposed to work.
Are you sure it won't have any adverse effects on anything?
That's a pretty big statement. :) Bugs happen.
Having useless memory mappings certainly must have some negative
effect on something. It doesn't seem like a good idea to have a lot of
mapped memory that doesn't have to be mapped.
I guess e.g. the bookkeeping overhead might become significant with
large numbers of mappings. Maybe the issue Sam has been looking into is
actually related to something like that, not to VRAM?
Well, with some games that new query can report more than 6.8k mapped
buffers
Right, and the new HUD query is useful for tracking this, as I can
easily imagine such a large number of mappings incurring significant
overhead somewhere.
(both VRAM/GTT) but a bunch are for VRAM. And more than 1GB of mapped VRAM.
When I look at the number of bytes moved by TTM, the counter is also
very high in these apps and most likely tied to the slowdowns. The
kernel memory manager is moving data almost all the time... Presumably
it's because of that aperture limit of 256MB.
However, my point is that these issues are not directly related to the
number of mappings itself, and reducing the number of mappings won't
directly affect them.
I would like to approach the problem by reducing the amount of vram
needed by the userspace in order to prevent TTM to move lot of data...
One thing that might help there is not trying to put any buffers in VRAM
which will (likely) be accessed by the CPU and which are larger than say
1/4 the size of CPU visible VRAM. And maybe also keeping track of the
total size of such buffers we're trying to put in VRAM, and stop when it
exceeds say 3/4.
That could be a solution yes. But maybe, we should also try to reduce
the number of mapped VRAM (for buffers mapped only once). Hopefully that
will reduce the overhead somewhere. Although, this won't change anything
if we want to access more than 256MB at the same time.
By the way, the amount of CPU accessible VRAM shouldn't be 256MB? I
added a new query which tracks that and also something which stores at
init time the visible VRAM size. And it returns:
vram_vis_size = 238 MB
That's not exactly 256MB. Any ideas?
Anyway, I'm going to push this patch.
Thanks for updating the commit log.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
